Stive Pesley

Oops, yeah sorry my bad I was thinking of the 70% of people infected that are double jabbed - nice spot and saved me from being accused of 'deliberately' spreading misinformation further down the thread ?
The broader point still stands though, there is a significant number double jabbed that may have been saved with a booster and everyone that has chosen not to be jabbed the consequences are ultimately on them.
We are at approx similar daily rates of infection to the pandemics peak with significantly lower deaths.  The vaccines are working, imho there needs to be a lot more urgency re. boosters and people dying that have chosen not to have the vaccine, well thats a bit tough to put it bluntly.  I don't see what else we can do now other than live with what we've got and carry on with life?

Hang on - that's not right is it? more like 70% aren't vaccinated?

When did you ever get off?
 
Ah!

Mate you’ve been polishing your badge for months and I presumed you’d got your hat pulled down over your eyes already? ?

I've never really fully understood the logic of vaccine passports in that respect either
I know there are some studies which have found viral loads in vaccinated people are a lot lower and therefore they pass it on less and when they do, it's a weakened virus (as the antibodies have already had a go at it) - but i think these are far from conclusive yet
 
 

Yep - the charts quoted it has a comparison figure per 100,000 vaccinated/non-vaccinated. - which on the face of it shows that in all age groups over 30, there are more cases per capita in the vaccinated 
The flipside is that the same figures go on to show that the deaths per capita in the unvaccinated are far, far higher

They also show that the number of infections in vaccinated people is rising month on month
So the vaccine is working in terms of massively reducing the risk of serious illness and death (via milder infections) 
And the figures also show that total immunity is waning over time - hence the focus on boosters
I don't think this tells us anything we didn't already know

I guess there are two schools of thought
1. Those who don't see masks as a particular imposition and therefore, if making them mandatory in crowded places saves a single life then that's a win for the greater good
2. Those who have massive control issues and couldn't give a flying duck if they save lives or not - they ain't being told to wear one by no one and they feel no social responsibility. 
 

I guess there are two schools of thought
1. Those who don't see masks as a particular imposition and therefore, if making them mandatory in crowded places saves a single life then that's a win for the greater good
2. Those who have massive control issues and couldn't give a flying duck if they save lives or not - they ain't being told to wear one by no one and they feel no social responsibility. 
 

Well it looks as if I've been dealing with coronavirus all wrong,and that we should be only caring about our own health.
So if I unfortunately do contact the virus, I'll need to hope that all the doctors and nurses haven't arrived at the same conclusion of only caring for themselves, when I turn up at the hospital looking for help. Maybe I could go home and clap a bit louder in the hope they change their minds.
But I suppose I could be lucky and catch the virus without it becoming life threatening. Meaning I could possibly take a holiday to help me recuperate and anyone else flying on the same plane, well that's their fault if they become infected, they shouldn't have taken the risk of travelling alongside me. If not a holiday maybe a trip to Pride Park, well I suppose the same scenario applies for any infections in the crowd. And I wouldn't want to be seen has virtue signalling of caring for others by wearing a mask. 

Currently in the departure lounge at Gatwick Airport. 10% not wearing masks. 
Though I seem to be attracting them. Keep sitting next to me. I want to be a f@nny magnet on holiday but it seems I'm just a twit magnet

Ah now those that disagree with you are no better than drink drivers ,,,, I’m a non drinker and very happy to ban all alcohol use , it will STOP drink driving , STOP drink fuelled violence, STOP addiction, STOP destruction of families , relieve massively the pressures on the nhs,
you boys up for joining me on a campaign to get it banned with the same gusto as forcing bits of paper on people’s faces ,,,, I’m willing to bet that won’t happen ,you will defend your right to drink sensibly 

Perhaps. Schools of thought or school teacher's thoughts? 
I think we have at least 2 on this thread. 

Agreed. Again the flaw in this argument is masks are better at stopping the wearer spread the virus than they are protecting the wearer. 
This "freedom' is freedom to spread it not freedom from catching it. 
It's the same argument drink drivers used in the 70s when they wanted to carry on driving home from the pub. 

I guess there are two schools of thought
1. Those who don't see masks as a particular imposition and therefore, if making them mandatory in crowded places saves a single life then that's a win for the greater good
2. Those who have massive control issues and couldn't give a flying duck if they save lives or not - they ain't being told to wear one by no one and they feel no social responsibility. 
 

I guess there are two schools of thought
1. Those who don't see masks as a particular imposition and therefore, if making them mandatory in crowded places saves a single life then that's a win for the greater good
2. Those who have massive control issues and couldn't give a flying duck if they save lives or not - they ain't being told to wear one by no one and they feel no social responsibility. 
 

Join the DCFC Death Cult. 
Currently only 4 members but open to anyone who enjoys being obsessively irrational. 
 

Allow me to adjudicate, as you quoted the study that I linked originally.
The main thrust of that paper is that vaccination DOES lower transmission rates considerably, but that wanes over time, so in respect of the latter you are correct and you have since clarified as such.
However your initial throwaway statement 
is unclear. And taken at face value comes across as misinformation
If you'd said "as vaccination effectiveness wanes we know that eventually the vaxxed can transmit the virus at similar rates to the unvaxxed" then you'd have been right and no one could have accused you of deliberate misrepresentation
 
Case dismissed - nothing more to see here
 

It’s a worn out tactic now though ,, personally I had never been involved in any kind of online platform of this nature until I stumbled into the politics thread on this forum that I was on for Derby county chat and info , I have to be honest it really troubled me when I was pretty much accused at times of being racist , homophobic , stupid , uncaring and many other tags if I disagreed with certain opinions of some posters but after a period of time ive come to see it for what it is and don’t allow it to shut down any debate ,opinions or questions I have , at times I must also admit it’s funny seeing masks slip and people paint themselves into a corner to come out throwing abuse and silly unfounded accusations ??‍♂️

So what I said is unclear but not wrong and certainly not deliberate misinformation.  Misinformation would be saying something wholly untrue - mine was at worst, as you say, a throwaway statement.
FWIW I recall the study that you linked stating that by week 12 there was no difference in tranmission whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated.  Now I am no Doctor, so feel free to research this yourself but I highly doubt that by week 11 day 6 you are still protecting others around you from transmission.  We also know it takes 2 weeks for the vaccine to kick in fully - therefore imho there is probably a goldilocks period during those 12 weeks in which you are much less of a risk to the people around you than an unvaccinated person, but it is not the full 12 weeks. 
For arguments sake if we say 10 weeks, anyone that had their jab before mid-July is as much as a risk as those that haven't had a jab.  For reference in the UK difference in the number that were fully jabbed on July 20th compared to today is approx 9m out of approx 67m - or 58m people carrying the same risk transmitting covid.
Case dismissed - nothing more to see here ?

Save your tears - i'm not afraid of living. I've actually been out and done so much the last couple of months that I'm amazed I haven't caught it already. 
 
I'm not surprised either - where did I say that?
You don't half read these posts through a weird filter of your own making sometimes

Allow me to adjudicate, as you quoted the study that I linked originally.
The main thrust of that paper is that vaccination DOES lower transmission rates considerably, but that wanes over time, so in respect of the latter you are correct and you have since clarified as such.
However your initial throwaway statement 
is unclear. And taken at face value comes across as misinformation
If you'd said "as vaccination effectiveness wanes we know that eventually the vaxxed can transmit the virus at similar rates to the unvaxxed" then you'd have been right and no one could have accused you of deliberate misrepresentation
 
Case dismissed - nothing more to see here
 

I'm not so sure the tories will have the stomach for imposing more restrictions. 
The problem is that the more people who get covid and survive without long covid symptoms - the less empathy there is for anyone else who might not be so lucky
I've spent 18 months following rules and hoping that I don't catch it. Now i feel it's inevitable, and not a question of IF I will catch it, but WHEN. Then I just have to cross my fingers and hope that the vaccine does its job
This was clearly the strategy from the moment the vaccine rollout started
 
 
 

Save your tears - i'm not afraid of living. I've actually been out and done so much the last couple of months that I'm amazed I haven't caught it already. 
 
I'm not surprised either - where did I say that?
You don't half read these posts through a weird filter of your own making sometimes